View Full Version : BB Top 16 Round 5
Matchups for Rd5:
KG-AGCent vs ER Chaser
Victor Charlie vs KG-Thorshammer
RwCanuck vs Doodlebug
KG-Koz vs KG-Panther
GazNZ vs KG-Cloghaun
Scipio vs Arom Dov
POD matchup:
Tripps, Mike69, NiG
ER_Chaser
13 Dec 05, 23:45
haha... finally we meet, AGCent :D
Ill put my money on ER this one lol
Sorry havent caught up with you BTW ER - Ive been to busy finishing stuff off.
Also the CMAK tourn im in has started back up again with a new round
well get around to a few MEs at some point.
ER_Chaser
14 Dec 05, 10:14
LOL ... Thanks GAZ. That is big support for me ... esp. while I am now in deep trouble (again :D) during my games with our new member Nemenis Leader :p ...
But I will try all my best as always :)
I've never played ER but i've seen KG AGCent's work numerous times. My money is on KG AGcent!
:dead: i hate pod plays :crosseye:
Anyhoo, an idea just sprung to me, we should bet WARS points on matches :)
haha
As in I bet 10 WARS points on a draw between ER and AGCent.
Or a predictions page where we can make predictions on tourneys....
Nah i'm just babbling - work has been a pain and i'm not thinking straight at the moment...
But I will make some predictions, having just recently played KG_AGCent in the last round (minor each way) and playing ER in the GoH (minor my way) maybe i can screw up my eyes and take a punt :)
55%-45% To the attacker, whomever that is. :)
And there is a ton of good matchups here, not just ER and AGCent!
KG-AGCent vs ER Chaser (WARS Ranking 9 vs 2 respectively)
Victor Charlie vs KG-Thorshammer (7 vs 96)
RwCanuck vs Doodlebug (24 vs 14)
KG-Koz vs KG-Panther (6 vs 91)
GazNZ vs KG-Cloghaun (8 and 5) - should be the toughest matchup.
Scipio vs Arom Dov (20 vs 89)
Tripps, Mike69, NiG (1, 19, 4)
ER_Chaser
14 Dec 05, 17:56
hey, tripps, nice idea. We can put on a pool and bet on the results using WARS points. :D .. As long as we have the blessings of the bosses :D ... Kerry, com'on.. this is serious business. CM session will be come Vegas in SZO :p ... And maybe there will be a full stock market on WARS in the future .... :crosseyes:
Let me think about it... :hmmm:
No. :nuts:
Sorry you couldn't afford my handling fees... :p
Well that was a mess. :mad:
Forget the QB idea for Rd5 after more testing it affords nothing like I wanted for this scenario. Trying to limit purchases & import units at the same time plus dealing with the way CM spreads out purchase points for Combo's etc was a disaster. :nuts:
So, I'm redoing the original formations. It will still be an allied attack at @10,000 pts.
As far as balance etc I'll be making assumptions based on earlier tests... yea I know, just go with me on this one ok! :halo:
And before you ask when you get the scenario and look it over: because I wanted it that's why! :p
Still trying to get this out by the weekend.
FYI- The championship scenario map = Rd 6 is done... :whist:
Let me think about it... :hmmm:
No. :nuts:
Sorry you couldn't afford my handling fees... :p
Ok, what about just a predictions page then? And it keeps track of how well your picks are? :)
Probably a good idea not to bet WARS points, because then unscrupled people like myself could be done for match fixing :laugh:
So, I'm redoing the original formations. It will still be an allied attack at @10,000 pts.
:crosseye:
I wonder how many conscript Russian Rifle squads you can get for that....
Break Time from the scenario! :toast: :cool1:
No Conscript squads!
I dislike Con Sq's :censored: = win by mass not tactical skill to me. Although I guess getting those masses :kotz: into place takes some skill...
I prefer quality over quantity, especially in the CM system, although quantity can overwhelm quality here. :halo:
I see CM as a game of one players tactical skill vs another players tactical skill.
Not as a mass of units vs a few units but as players moving highly specialized units (whatever the situation) into just the right positions.
Obviously in this round with all the points there will be some "masses" but I wanted this to be a nice slug-fest. I did go back and remove all the "damage- craters, fires, rubble" since there will be enough of them quickly, and to limit the load times as much as possibile.
(Rd 2 of the CMAK tourney had 10+ minute load times & that was just Turn 1! With damage, movement, firing, dust etc that easily stretch to 15+ min later on.)
BTW- 10,000 pts= 42 Companies, 378 Sq's, @ 4158 pixel men (-Hq's -mgs) and, they occupy almost 1/2 of an 800 x 800 map. :crosseye:
Current point standings in the Top 16 Tourney:
ER_Chaser: 545
KG_Cloghaun: 497
Victor Charlie: 491
Tripps: 456
Mike69: 453
GAZ NZ: 448
KG Koz: 410
KG_ThorsHammer: 399
NiG: 389
Scipio: 367
KG_Panther: 336
rwcanuck: 332
KG_AGCent: 327
Arom Dov: 221
Doodlebug: 198
Most of the players still have an outside chance to capture one of the top 2 spots.
But it will take some 90-10 victories to get enough points to jump over the top 3 players. :devil:
So, it's going to take some good games by Gaz-NZ, KG_AGCent, KG_ThorsHammer & Mike69 to upset the odds on favorites! :nofear:
#1 ER Chaser vs #13 KG-AGCent
#2 KG-Cloghaun vs #6 GazNZ
#3 Victor Charlie vs #8 KG-Thorshammer
#4 Tripps vs #5 Mike69
#5 Mike69 vs #9 NiG
# 7 KG-Koz vs #11 KG-Panther
#9 NiG vs #4 Tripps
#10 Scipio vs #14 Arom Dov
#12 RwCanuck vs #15 Doodlebug
Rd 5 should be coming out to you soon.
Round 5 has been sent out!
End Date for Round 5 is April 30th 2006
You should be recieving the file any time, if you do not get it by tonight let me know.
Good Luck & Good Hunting! :nofear:
:salute:
ER_Chaser
19 Dec 05, 19:55
Apparently I got file, boss :D ... I will contact my KG buddy later tonight :salute:
I think you should have added some buildings Kerry - its a bit open and devoid of cover aint it? :laugh:
More seriously tho - its missing a terrain feature - Fountain Square, aint got a fountain....
More seriously tho - its missing a terrain feature - Fountain Square, aint got a fountain....
WHAT! :surprise:
Can't you see all the water right there! :mad:
The "fountain" is now UNDER all that water! :whist:
It was above it before that stray 300mm shell hit it!
It was a beauty too: 20' tall with a gleaming golden statue of a goddess, hands raised up in adoration to the scenario maker! :laugh:
What?! - Thats where the gleaming statue of adoration for Palantir, the 8th wonder of the world, the Goddess of beauty, pilgrim spot for millions worldwide, is?
And it's been sunk?
For Shame!
I bet it was ER, you should dock him 200 points for heresy :)
ER_Chaser
27 Dec 05, 15:07
No, it wasn't me ... :p
For the sake of a holiday season, I will tell you who it was, it was a nun.
.....
there were 4 nuns, who worked very hard (maybe too hard) for the year so that at the year end, they asked the priest for a short break. Granted by the good kind priest, they had a wonderful holiday and came back on time in the morning to the priest.
Yet, the first nun said, "Father, I am sorry that I did watch an R-rated movie last night." The priest looked up into the sky and prayed for a few seconds and said, "It is ok, my child, go drink some of the holy water and you will be fine." So she went and drank. But strangly, the priest noticed that the 4th nun was smiling.
Now the second nun came up and said, "I am sorry that not only did I get drunk last night, but I drove and run over a dog." Seeing the tears in her eyes, the priest looked up into the sky and prayed for a couple of minutes and told her to drink some holy water and excused her. Now the 4th nun was even giggling. The priest felt strange but did not ask.
The 3rd nun came up and confessed nervously, "Father, I was terrible that I got drunk and run totally nude for the whole night last night!" The shocked priest now prayed for over 10 minutes and finally calmed himself down to ask the sorry kid to drink some holy water and be excused. However, now the last nun was laughing on the floor and could not even stand up.
The priest can't help but asked her curiously, "oh dear, what kind of fun did you have during the break that made you so happy?" After efforts to gather herself together, the 4th nun can bearly speak, "I ... I just did pee in that holy water last night ... "
:P
....
Wish you all a happy and healthy holiday season ... :love:
KG_Cloghaun
01 Jan 06, 11:50
Was it just me, or did anyone else agonize over the German defensive setup? :nuts:
I did!!! :bounce:
I did!!! :bounce:
So now you do to! :devious:
I still am..... :crosseye:
I was wondering where the turn was.... looking forward to seeing it :rolleyes:
Well you got it now - its sometimes a little annoying that you cannot see the other setup before you create yours, as in, the first person to send off the setup gets to see what the other side has before creating their setup...
Ah well :)
...its sometimes a little annoying that you cannot see the other setup before you create yours, Ah well :)
That would be a bit "unfair" now would it not? :p
Besides I like to think about all of the players that go- "oh sh**" when they realize their side one setup sucks as they see what they are up against vs side two's position / setup! :argh:
:whist: :laugh:
That would be a bit "unfair" now would it not? :p
Besides I like to think about all of the players that go- "oh sh**" when they realize their side one setup sucks as they see what they are up against vs side two's position / setup! :argh:
:whist: :laugh:
Yeah but maybe it encourages slow starts?
for example, you have 3 players in a POD match, player A stalls on the setup, player C sends his, player A can now go through what he's up against and deploy appropriately, player B then checks out his setup and deploys, sends to player C who goes 'ahhh crap!'
So, if your playing, best to be the slowest starter, otherwise you get the short end of the stick.
Not really the best possible situation is it?
ER_Chaser
06 Jan 06, 11:03
you should sync on the time when you send the files.
Actually to be fair, all should have their setups ready before exchanging the files. Just send out a notification on completion of your setup 1 to your opponent(s). And wait until all finished, and then the next round of email should set up a single all-agreed-upon time to exchange the files together. That way, there is no such issues.
I completely agree with this assessment of the situation.
A synched start would be difficult to manage and the only solution I can think of for this would be that we all send our start-ups to the tourney organiser and when he has all of them for a pod, he send them on.
*we all know Kerry doesn't have that much to do* :whist:
A simpler solution would be to provide a screen shot of the opponents setup areas so the initial deployement can be planned with at least a little knowledge.
Although, you could argue that we shouldn't necessarily know where the enemy is coming from. I'm talking about introducing this to prevent the slower player gaining the advantage.
I like option 1 best.... :laugh: no really... I do!... Kerry could issue a penalty to the slowest player if it comes in after a certain date (agreed in advance). :devil:
ER_Chaser
06 Jan 06, 12:40
well, it does not have to be Kerry. For example, you can send all the files to me (except my opponent), and since I do not have any of those pwds, I could not look at them anyways. But I can make sure all the files were there and then distribute them to the proper opponents. It is not a big deal for me to do, indeed.
Actually I was hoping that the players would be honest & trustworthy and not take advantage of the situation. :halo:
It's hard to get all the files in sync in a POD, but my having to try and keep track of which "new" file goes to who and when would drive me crazy! :nuts:
The "Setup file is ready to be sent" idea / email sounds like a good way to go. :)
Its not just for PODS, 2 person battles as well.
I know in the past some people have agreed to send a 'dummy' setup to each other so they can do their other side deployment.
Thats the other option.
I only bring this up cos i'm player C in the above example :)
Not blaming NiG or anyone for dubious play, he might of sent his setup off already, I'm just stating whats going on, soemone got to see the German setup before deploying their attacking forces.
KG_ThorsHammer
06 Jan 06, 20:24
I simply suggested to VC that we exchange files at the same time. If you cant trust each other at this level, there is no point in playing.
ER_Chaser
06 Jan 06, 20:27
I simply suggested to VC that we exchange files at the same time. If you cant trust each other at this level, there is no point in playing.
Exactly, AGcent and me agreed upon the same rule. :)
I know in the past some people have agreed to send a 'dummy' setup to each other so they can do their other side deployment.
Just to prove that I don't pbem a lot of games- what exactly is a "dummy" setup & how do you do it?:confused:
I suppose that's when you don't actually place your troops and just leave them where they are... then save and send the turn on...?
KG_Cloghaun
31 Jan 06, 19:33
so,..... everyone enjoying their matches? :whist:
A dummy turn ER is when each setup is shown to all parties - ie in a mirrored 3 way game etc everyone see the allies and axis forces you get at the start and deployments.
You dont actually plot the dummy turn you just view it.
It makes it fair to all players.
As some players see all prior to deployment while others see it last after getting the last turn setup.
Its the downside to 3 way matches
Unfortunately that makes the scenario even more "exposed."
The only advantage the defender has is that the attacker sets up first not knowing the defenders strength is or positions are, and that he knows the strength of the attacker. The Attackers advantage is deciding where to place his main units & make his main thrust. he can then (after seeing the defenders side) alter his attack path if he so desires.
Not perfect by a long means but still "equal" and it gives some initial "mystery" to the game.
An aerial screen shot would be my choice... if you turn bases off (can you do that in set up?) then the oppo won't see any forces... if you can't turn them off then they'll just see little squares and nothing more... :cheeky:
Replacement player KG_Jag coming off the bench to face the mighty KG_Scipio.
I've been on that bench so long, it seems to have become one with my backside!
An aerial screen shot would be my choice... if you turn bases off (can you do that in set up?) then the oppo won't see any forces... if you can't turn them off then they'll just see little squares and nothing more... :cheeky:
I'm not sure what the point would be since both players will see the entire map as they are doing their "attacker" side setup.
I was assuming a pod game... send the screenie backwards in the chain :whist:
Unfortunately that makes the scenario even more "exposed."
The only advantage the defender has is that the attacker sets up first not knowing the defenders strength is or positions are, and that he knows the strength of the attacker. The Attackers advantage is deciding where to place his main units & make his main thrust. he can then (after seeing the defenders side) alter his attack path if he so desires.
Not perfect by a long means but still "equal" and it gives some initial "mystery" to the game.
IN a 3 way game there is always one player and possibly two of the three thats sees things last depending on when turns are sent / recieved and this gives them the disadvantage of not seeing the full deployment.
Ie a 3 way battle for example - mirriored - hypothetical
TRIPPS vs ER
ER Vs KG CLOG
KG CLOG vs Tripps
Tripps sends a PBM after unit placment to ER.
ER see the defending and attacking setups as he havent sent his setup file off yet to KG Clog.
KG Clog sends his turn off to TRIPPS after this or before - which may or may not give TRIPPS an advantge of seeing both sides setups before he sends his turn to ER.
ER gets to setup both sides and see all forces deployed and gets an overall advantage.
Now thats what im talking about.
By doing it this way its more fair to all parties.
Due to this problem with tournaments 3- way - and the whole setup options ive experienced its becoming disconcerting playing CM tournaments.
Some players are geting advantages - ie the slow PBM senders :)
GAZ
The basic problem stems from playing both sides of the same battle.
The Purist and I had a long discussion on this topic last summer. Regardless of how good the design is, almost all FOW is lost. At least somebody is going to know where the other guy's SU zones are. Eventually everybody is going to know everything about the composition of the other side's forces--down to unit experience & fitness, ammo load outs, number of tungsten rounds, special weapons, etc. Unless they are made variable (which in some case can create balance problems), you will know the when and what of reinforcements that your opponent receives. Of course your opponent will know yours as well. I find this to be a very high price to pay.
Nemesis Lead
06 Feb 06, 10:42
You guys ever think of running tourneys in the ROW format? Let me know if you don't know what this is.
The basic problem stems from playing both sides of the same battle.
The Purist and I had a long discussion on this topic last summer. Regardless of how good the design is, almost all FOW is lost. At least somebody is going to know where the other guy's SU zones are. Eventually everybody is going to know everything about the composition of the other side's forces--down to unit experience & fitness, ammo load outs, number of tungsten rounds, special weapons, etc. Unless they are made variable (which in some case can create balance problems), you will know the when and what of reinforcements that your opponent receives. Of course your opponent will know yours as well. I find this to be a very high price to pay.
I know what you are saying KG Jag.
But it is also debated that setup / placement ie one of the most important stages of the game that can effect the battle.
Giving a person an advantage in this manner while 2 other players do not get it is unfair. Too stop this Its in my opinion the games not be mirrored. You play what random side you are allocated.
Just like in the Gunny Bunnys 5000 tourament.
I really liked that and it was quicker and less tedious to get through.
Tripps won that tournament by the way.
Marine Raider
06 Feb 06, 13:50
I have never played in a ROW tourney, although I understand their scoring system. It seems like a great idea.
You can post that ROW system so we all can read about it.
One reason we went to the mirrored format is- so no one could "comment" that they played a side that could not or had little chance to win. Which is a big consideration in ladder play.
I have no problem running other systems- what ever works best & is wanted.
Marine Raider
06 Feb 06, 16:23
Here is what I know about ROW--mind you--I have never actually played in ROW. Let's say we have a 12 person tourney:
1) People play a scenario from only 1 side. For example, I might be the Axis in an ME-type scenario. 6 games would be played by the 12 people in the tourney.
2) While you are physically playing against your opponent (the Allied player opposing you) in the game, your REAL opponent is the 5 other Axis players.
3) At the end of the game, I might score 81% and my Allied Opponent might score 19%. However, I am competing against all of the other AXIS players and I am rated against them. They might have scores of 98%, 88%, 83%, 79% and 50%.
4) The best 3 scores might advance to the next round. The same would hold true for the Allies. In this case, even though I crushed my opponent with a score of 81%, I would not advance to the next round because other Axis players won by larger margins. And NONE of the Allied players who advance actually won their games.
5) The next round would have another scenario, the sides would be mixed up and things would continue. The tourney winner is the one was beats that average score of his group by the most.
The advantages:
1) --unbalanced scenarios are a moot point. The scenario could be totally unfair (as above) and that is ok. The best score for the Axis in a scenario might only be 22%, but that could be enoough to win.
2) No one will be able to see a map or know anything about set up.
3) You don't have to play elimination rounds (what I showed above). Everyone can play 4 different games--at the end your variance from group average determines the winner.
The disadvantages:
1) People are out for blood. No ceasefires and no mercy.
2) If you happen to play weak opponents, you have the advantage. There are many things you can do to prevent this however.
3) You have to remind peple not to surrender because this give big advantages. People also have to finish games and you have to have alternate players too.
Ok, I like the basic idea. (But then I like the basic idea of POD's too):whist:
Going JUST with what MRaider said above about ROW: what does that stand for?
(there are probably ways around these so players please comment)
--unbalanced scenarios are a moot point. The scenario could be totally unfair (as above) and that is ok.
You still have the problem of players getting an "unwinnable" side and thus taking an "automatic" loss in a game on the ladder: even if they advance to the next round. What if they get another unwinnable side in rd 2? Then they have 2 "auto" ladder losses. Most players want the ladder games, I suppose in such a tourney that such games might not count vs the ladder & are played as "non-rated" instead.
The first & easiest solution that comes to my mind is: An award of "ladder bonus points" could be awarded to the best Axis & best Allied player.
If you happen to play weak opponents, you have the advantage. There are many things you can do to prevent this however.
And these ways are?
You have to remind peple not to surrender because this give big advantages. People also have to finish games and you have to have alternate players too. No problem with this.
Nemesis Lead
06 Feb 06, 19:39
I will let MRaider respond for himself, but two things:
1) ROW stands for Rumblings of War. It is the name of a tourney. They are on ROW 5 or something. I have never played in them either, but I know guys who do and they absolutely love the system. The winner gets a crate of South African wine. Also--it is a requirement to write AARs and bonus points are awarded for good AARs. Here is a link to some of the AARs.
http://www.gregories.net/row/index.php
2) Palantir is correct. The loser in an unbalanced game would be punished on the ladder since he lost the game.
Just thinking out loud (and making stuff up)....if say the average tourney score for a scenario was a 67%-33% win for the Axis, you could say that in order to win as the Axis you have to score 68% or more or in order to win for the Allies you have to score 34% or more (67-33 is a draw). Game scores would be reported to the organizer and you would not know if you really won until all the scores were tabulated.
To balance the system, you would have to make sure that a similar level of skill was on either side of a scenario. So say we were playing with the top 10 guys on this ladder. If you wanted to reward players for having high rank, the pairups might be as follows:
Axis--players number 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10
Allies--players number 2,3,5,7, and 9
Individual matchups would be 1 vs 9, 2 vs 10, 4 vs 7, 3 vs 8.
If you wanted to get as even games as possible you might do individual match ups of 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, 7 vs 8, and 9 vs 10.
The tourney would also have to be large enough to account for outliers skewing the results (say some fool surrenders and wins 100 to 0).
In either case, this would correct for unbalanced scenarios. Of course the best way to correct for unbalanced scenarios is to play test them extensively so you know they are not unbalanced:). In reality, however, this is often hard to do.
BTW, this is not ROW, just me blathering. In ROW there is no ladder--just six to nine games with people playing on multiple sides. Wins and losses are irrelevent--variance to average scores is everything.
All of this might be too complicated, but it is good food for thought.
I kinda go with what you're saying there with the victory conditions (%) actually needed to win but it still wouldn't help he ladder for the losing side.
I suppose this could be balanced after the fact by awarding bonus points on the ladder equivalent to the percieved difficulty of achieveing those extra % points.
But all that being said, the ladder is just a means of rating the players and if you play enough tourney games then you will get your share of diffcult games and easy ones - wouldn't it balance out in the end?
The only gripe I currently have about the ladder points system is losing points when you draw (to a player lower on the ladder) but that's another thing altogether (isn't it?) :blab:
I guess the main point to think about is- do all tournaments need to be for ladder games?
Most CM games played here at SZO are mainly about going on the ladder.
...if say the average tourney score for a scenario was a 67%-33% win for the Axis, you could say that in order to win as the Axis you have to score 68% or more or in order to win for the Allies you have to score 34% or more (67-33 is a draw). Game scores would be reported to the organizer and you would not know if you really won until all the scores were tabulated.
Assuming the games are going to be counted on the ladder:
That might work, giving both sides a chance for a victory.
Everyone would have to know up front of course that even though you might get a victory level in your match vs so & so you may actually lose the game vs him on the ladder. (if I'm following this right)
EX. Rd1 NiG plays Nemesis Lead & gets a 72% vs 28% "Maj victory" NiG sends the end match score in to the organizer (but does not report it on the ladder). After all Rd1 games are played it turns out that the average win was 75%-25%. So NL "wins" and the game will be reported as thus: NL 72% vs NiG 28% (still recorded as a Maj victory but for the other guy). The score has to be flipped so the ladder can record a victory for NL.
To balance the system, you would have to make sure that a similar level of skill was on either side of a scenario.
That would work by matching all players against each other within a certain "range." 1-6 / 7-12 etc.
The tourney would also have to be large enough to account for outliers skewing the results (say some fool surrenders and wins 100 to 0)..
The top & bottom scores could be thrown out to handle this.
Nemesis Lead
07 Feb 06, 16:59
Following Palantir's line of thought.....I don't think all tourney's need to be ladder games. The whole reporting of games would confuse the heck out of people.
We could play for ladder points, for example. In a 3 game tourney, first place might get 100 points, second place 60 points, and third place 30 points (you have to be careful not to award too many points, or you will unbalance the ladder). The top 3 losers might also lose a corresponding number of points in order to keep the ladder "balanced."
Therein lies the downside of this approach. If you start awarding ladder points "willy-nilly" you will compromise the integrity of the entire ladder. If this were done, I would err on the side of caution and award fewer points instead of many.
The advantage still remains--using this approach means that people will not be able to complain about unbalanced scenarios.
KG_Cloghaun
07 Feb 06, 18:57
I don't think all tourney's need to be ladder games.
I'm completely fine with that. I see no reason why they can't be totally seperate if need be.
ER_Chaser
08 Feb 06, 00:32
An update for my situation with tourney games right now:
I have been able to set it up yet :P :( ... I have been miserably busy since 2006 ... But I will catch once I get a break from work. Sorry ...
Victor Charlie
13 Feb 06, 04:16
KG-Thorshammer and I have just finished our 2 round 5 games. Tough, tough fighting! Still in the balance till the last turns. Both of us had periods of things going right and things going terribly wrong! It seemed to me a lot longer than the 30 turns. In the end we had 1 draw and 1 minor victory for me. A hard game with some new lessons learned!
Make sure to report them! ;)
So what's the general feeling for this round? :hmmm:
Talk about quite...
Anyone still alive?
Nemesis Lead
21 Mar 06, 21:26
ER Chaser is apparently a busy dude these days. I sent him a file a while back, but he says it will be some time before he can start the game. Once the game starts, ER says he will be fast.
ER_Chaser
23 Mar 06, 12:33
And I apologize for this situation --- to everyone, esp. Nemesis Lead ---- I am sneaking this msg at office (think about it, I was so relaxed before and could chat for hours at office ... :( ... ).
Jay, I will try to see when I can squeeze a bit time to do the tedious setups. Also, I think you should be both files right? Please set everything up in the german side file as well (that way, you do not have to wait until I send you a file to think the setup). Once I can send you my setup, you can just quickly duplicate the setup which will be much faster.
And again, sorry for this mess.
Nemesis Lead
24 Mar 06, 01:51
Hey ER,
We are running into the language barrier again, mate. :)
Am I to understand that:
1) You will reply to the Soviet setup file that I sent you?
2) I should go ahead and do the German setup file and send it to you (and then you will respond to that file)?
Not really sure what you mean by "duplicate setup." Not interested in doing it either ;)
Please let me know,
Jay
Well how are the other games going?
Are the germans holding strong or are the Soviets rolling?
Games with Doodlebug are now over...
2 tough battles with Dave coming out point wise in the end:
112 to 88.
It was slow going for the Russians in both games and back flags were never threatened.
Great Tourney and quite challenging against very good players.
Cheers
Rob
This is called a nice day for the ARTY guy's! :devil:
Although, I think several of those count as "friendly fire!" :crosseye:
A bit hard to read but that's 63 Inf / 86 Inf & 3 SC's.
I guess an avalanche of nearly 200 300mm shells on a small map can make for an impressive BOOM!
And this was still an AX Min!
Nice game Dave/Rob.
Doodlebug
07 Apr 06, 12:44
Being a generally shifty sort of individual I had an awesomely cunning plan to give my opponent just enough rope to hang himself. I would allow him to make a start, reveal his line of attack then position my carefully concealed reserve in his path to thoroughly bloody his nose.
The pick of the HMG42 teams were waiting. A top notch headquarters was waiting. The loaded HT's were waiting. All were ready to roll.
Picture my disgust, nay contempt, when that scoundrel of an opponent refused to obligingly advance in a discernable schwerpunkt, I dithered and he dropped not one, not two but three THREE! of those blasted rockets in the tightest little pattern you could ever wish to see right on my reserve. To add insult to injury some reinforcements had just decided to appear and join the happy throng. The result, on the whole, was less than savoury. The screen shot doesn't do justice as it singularily fails to take note of the immobilised Stuh42 who spent the game gun pointing at the nearby friendly VL. How we laughed!
Of course it would be foolish of me to not learn from the experience. What you may ask? Don't bunch up? Disperse the reserve till needed? No. What then?
Never trust a Canadian with rockets that's what!
Nemesis Lead
09 Apr 06, 12:04
Guys,
Unfortunately, I am withdrawing from the CMBB Top Players Tourney.
"Real life" limits me to about 6 PBEM games at a time. I have held two of these "game slots" open for 7 WEEKS now waiting for ER Chaser to start his games with me. Despite all my pestering, I still have not gotten a file or a firm committment on when our games will start.....
I am filling these slots with different games and will lack the bandwidth to play CMBB Top Players (I also lack the patience to wait anymore).
Very sorry......but I am sure you will understand that 7 weeks is just too long keep precious gaming slots open.
No problem Jay, there's no way to get far into the round now with only 3 weeks left.
ER- will have to think about getting any score for this round. At most you will just have to take the average % (win/lose?) for bothsides and hope KG-Cloghaun doesn't sweep his games.
Comments anyone?
ER's last post was more than two weeks ago. While I may not be privileged to know the entire picture, it is very difficult to explain a delay of two months, give or take--and that's just to get the game underway. I came into the tournament as a late substitute in this round. Yet Pete (KG_Leopard aka Scipio) and I are already well underway (but still behind the pack), despite major time zone differences. Yet as I understand it, ER's game was never started or at least never reached the point where the first turn movie was generated to either player.
The bottom line is that unless ER has a very good excuse (of which--if one exists, I am not aware of same) not only for the delay but also for the length of it, he should not be eligible for the finals. I understand that real life happens. But a two month hiatus is very hard for the rest of a tournament field to endure, particularly when that field is comprised of the top players at SZO.
Further Jay should not be made to suffer becaue of this course of events.
Jay jumped in as a substitue player (thank you!) and never got in a turn (?) so he will not be losing or winning any matches.
Nemesis Lead
09 Apr 06, 21:26
Correct--I sent him one setup file with no file return for seven weeks. That was the extent of our game. I seek no victory and certainly don't want a defeat! :laugh:
ER_Chaser
15 Apr 06, 02:02
Kerry, I just received Jay's email reminding me of missing the deadlines of our tourney. Sigh.. I am so sorry for being the trouble for everyone here. Seriously, I must apologize for the situation here.
And I am not sure when I will be able to get out of this mess --- Kerry, and other tourney players as well, please let me know what is the proper status I should take --- frankly speaking, I probably should deserve a forfeit although I really do not want to. But considering my uncertain schedule ahead and also the fairness of the tourney, this might be the correct thing to call. Please let me know, Kerry ---- if anything, it is all MY fault. :salute:
(p.s.: even if I had time to play Nemesis Lead, I would have more chances to lose anyway ---- he is a better player :) )
ER_Chaser
15 Apr 06, 02:09
ER's last post was more than two weeks ago. While I may not be privileged to know the entire picture, it is very difficult to explain a delay of two months, give or take--and that's just to get the game underway. I came into the tournament as a late substitute in this round. Yet Pete (KG_Leopard aka Scipio) and I are already well underway (but still behind the pack), despite major time zone differences. Yet as I understand it, ER's game was never started or at least never reached the point where the first turn movie was generated to either player.
The bottom line is that unless ER has a very good excuse (of which--if one exists, I am not aware of same) not only for the delay but also for the length of it, he should not be eligible for the finals. I understand that real life happens. But a two month hiatus is very hard for the rest of a tournament field to endure, particularly when that field is comprised of the top players at SZO.
Further Jay should not be made to suffer becaue of this course of events.
Oh, I made the first post without reading anything. And then come back with this post. :)
Yes, I agree completely with KG_Jag. I think I should concede in this round and disqualify for the final round as well. (both as a tourney rule requirement and reality concerns, as I stated in the previous post.)
Again, I sincerely apologize for the disorder I brought to this tournament ---- Kerry, I miserably failed my promise to you, buddy :( ---- But for all the friends and "enemies" here ----
I WILL BE BACK! :devil:
:)
I will try to see you guys in the battlefield as soon as I can! :salute:
Well said ER! :salute:
With that being the case it opens up the way for a bunch of players to jump over him in points & make it into the Championship Match.
The tenative start date for Rd 6 (Championship round) is May 16th.
Nemesis Lead
27 Apr 06, 18:47
(p.s.: even if I had time to play Nemesis Lead, I would have more chances to lose anyway ---- he is a better player :) )
ER--part of me was relieved that I didn't have to play you. You fought a really tough defense in the draw that I had versus you and I doubt I would have been able to push you out of a city with many heavy buildings!
Heck didn't I give the Soviets enough fire power to do that? Must be slipping up...
Whats the end date for this now?
I for one would like more time, Mike and I are progressing as fast as we can, but because of the nature of this map turns take quite some time for me.
Not sure who else is still playing?
KG_Cloghaun
10 May 06, 06:37
I would like more time as well. Gaz & I are taking advantage of the extra time that's been given. We have been flying through turns at a record pace. (for us anyway).
I apologize for the slow start in this round, it was entirely my fault, but with the tournament lasting as long as it has, we are all bound to hit these slow stretches.
However I will abide by whatever decision is made.
Why everyone is done but you guys!!! :mad:
Oh... wait. :o
2/3rds of the games are still going on... :whist:
We'll bump round 5 back to May 30th. :halo:
That puts this at 5 months running time. :shock:
The top scores are tight, still an open game to see who are the top 2 players.
Victor Charlie: 602
KG_ThorsHammer: 575
ER_Chaser: 545
KG_Cloghaun: 497
Tripps: 456
Mike69: 453
GAZ NZ: 448
rwcanuck: 420
KG Koz: 410
NiG: 389
think its to be expected - takes me half an hour sometimes just to watch all the action in one turn, let alone plot all the moves :)
KG_Cloghaun
11 May 06, 06:50
You're such a swell guy, Kerry! Thanks a bunch.
Can you tell I enjoy running them for you- the players & not some kind of elite "tourney status" we have to maintain.
Whats the point of running one if the players don't get to play the scenarios & have fun doing it.
FINAL Rd5 Results: AL - 7, Ax - 3
AL:
Major -1
Minor- 3
Draw- 3
Ax:
Major- 1
Minor- 2
Note: The 3 AL Draw wins were by a combined total of just 14 points!
Must have been some real street to street "Grinding" going on in those games. :surprise:
:vegguitar: :coolban: :redapple: :banana: :vegguitar:
We have our 2 challengers to battle for the Championship in Rd 6.
Based on the final scores after 5 rounds & a possibile 1000 points it's clear who they are. :thumup:
Victor Charlie & KG_Cloghaun! :clap:
Total Score
Victor Charlie: 602
KG_Cloghaun: 601
Tripps: 590
KG_ThorsHammer: 575
ER_Chaser: 545
GAZ NZ: 544
Mike69: 519
rwcanuck: 420
KG Koz: 410
NiG: 389
KG_Panther: 362
KG_AGCent: 327
Arom Dov: 295
Doodlebug: 292
*KG_Leopard: 184
Nik: 175
Gonzo: 172
*KG_Jag: 129
*late round subs.
Congratulations to our top 2 players & now on to Sept '44 in Hungary & the Championship Round! :bite:
Go Cloghaun! Go! Great Job! :clap: :bounce:
KG_Cloghaun
13 Jun 06, 19:00
Congratulations on reaching the finals, VC.
I am sending you a forum PM with my email address. FYI.
I look forward to playing you.
Victor Charlie
14 Jun 06, 00:00
Congratulations on reaching the finals, VC.
I am sending you a forum PM with my email address. FYI.
I look forward to playing you.
Congrats yourself!
Should be a good game.
Hmmm, :whist:
Way back when I started this tourney I had the final round in mind, nice and compact. But as with most of my scenarios they claw their way out of the "screen" to become big brutes :freak: that beat me to a pulp. :whlchr:
This one was no different and with thoughts of the huge scenario "Sidedoor into Olympus Pass" still in my mind I decided (very late) to rework this one down to a decent size (1AM and I just got done with another "reworking.") But it's still nearly a mile across, 50 turns long & 15,000 pts! :crosseye:
I even "relaxed" spenting a little time doing some "new" tank vs tank & ATG vs tank tests. Then several hours researching the chance that those type of tanks could even be there. I won't tell you how few tanks were involved or you'll think I'm crazier than you already do! (And no, they were not there. :mad: )
Hopefully I will now quickly whittle this one down so it can be played under a year!
Congrats KG_Klog and VC :clap:
Did my best to get up there with the final round and maybe technically i should have been up there, but never mind, dont really fancy taking on either of you in a hurry, especially VC - my bogey opponent :devious:
To the victor the spoils!
KG_Cloghaun
24 Jun 06, 21:22
Any idea when the action might begin for the finals, Kerry?:whist:
Yes.
Soon, very soon.
This is a large scenaro with a lot of changes needing to be made.
A few "things" were discovered late to dictate additional changes. Like finding out that the A.I. sudddenly decided to move key defensive FORMATIONS clear across the map for NO reason. :mad: :censored: That was a waste of 20 hours work. :( (I hope that was clear & precise enough) Hard to balance when the enemy doesn't defend. Playing bothsides it was tweaked & re-tweaked. Now I'm finalizing it-again.
With this one being nearly 21,000 pts & 50+ turns it's bloody hell to accurately re-re-playtest when each major correction can affect the end game. Each turn can take an hour to do "manually & tactically" from bothsides so the end game outcome is "reasonable."
(btw- Ever have your tanks & 1/2T's etc run OUT of ammo and realize you're not 1/2 way across the map yet? = major tweaks.)
I'll tell you two weird things that happened in a playtest: a REG 4-6 INF held out for 41 turns (yes 41 confirmed turns!) of constant attacks: tanks rounds, mortar fire, Arty fire, MG fire, you name it I used it. That unit would not rout or break & he automatically drew LOS fire from every direction every turn. It finally required a costly close assault before he went down (once you see the map you'll understand why it took 41 turns to get at him). When the assault finally went off he was a 3-7 unit. After 40 turns of fire it lost only 1 guy. :nuts:
The second was a tank duel that never happened. Both tanks had fast moved & actually ran into each other head-on around a "corner." But then they started shooting at OTHER targets for a full turn. A check showed that they both had a 0% black LOS on the other tank-go figure too close to see. One was killed next turn by another unit.
Now back to the editor! ;)
The final match-ups for the 6th Round.
Only 6 players (besides the top 2) from the tourney have indicated they want to join in & play.
In pt. order & matchups:
(only 1 pt separates the 1st & 2nd place finishers 602:601)
#1 Victor Charlie :freak: Did not point-win a round, but took a solid 4th or 5th place every round & now holds 1st place! :surprise:
vs.
#2 KG-Cloghaun :bite: Took 2nd place 3 out of 5 rounds. :cool:
Mike69 :devil:
vs.
KG_Thorshammer :ar15:
Rwcanuck :bandit:
vs.
NiG :ogre:
KG-Panther :p
vs.
KG-Jag :popc1:
Final round has been sent out!
Good luck to you all!
Would any of the Allied OR Axis victors in Rd 5 care to explain their strategies for accomplishing that with us?
Hey!
I'm sure I said I was in :OHNO: :cry:
I diiid i diiiid, i did see a puddy tat - i mean, i did say i was in, on June 12th...
Ah well, never mind
Stu (KG_Panther) and I are in turns 28 and 27 in our games. How far along are the rest of you?
It's been more than a year since we started but KG_Panther and I have finally completed both of our games. The patient gods of war must have been smiling on me as I was able to pull out a major victory as the Soviets and a minor one as the Axis.
My victory level as the Soviets should only have been a tactical one. The reason I got more is because of the auto surrender of the Axis forces. While I greatly enjoyed this battle (in spite of all those damn cliffs :upset: ), I believe that some tweaking of the battle would be a good idea--especially if it is used in tournament play. That is Kerry should increase the Axis fanaticism or have unending conscript kubelwagon Axis reinforcements--something to avoid Axis auto surrender.
Kerry thanks for another excellent CM monster battle!
Great to hear the game was fun if "cliff" frustrating! (But what do you expect in the mountains- flat terrain? :laugh: )
Any last turn files you can send me?
Do you have any more AAR info about the scenario?
How did the Axis pull off their win?
If your Soviets had a "tac win" going what was the Axis defense like (considering they auto-surrendered it must have been close at the end.)
How did the players handle taking the village of Terpiak itself? Overpower it quickly or reduce it over time?
What did anyone think of the the inclusion of that "SS Mine Complex" for atmospere? I liked it... :whist:
Tweaking is already underway. :halo:
Kerry--last files from one game sent your way.
The cliffs caused some very odd infantry movements--similar in some ways to CM keystone cops road convoy movements.
My Axis troops maintained troops in the village to the end of game. I thought that one VL there would be contested, but the computer gave both to the Soviets. Holding a good number of VLs was important to my Axis minor win, but killing many Soviets, including many vehicles was even more important. I liked the SS Mine Complex feature. My Axis forces maintained control of it for entire game and were beginning a counter attack in that area when the game ended.
In my game as the Soviet, concentrated firepower and sheer mass were key to the Soviet's win. The Axis auto-surrender occurred well into OT. As I recall, it was at the end of the 5th or 6th OT turn. With regard to taking the village, I took the German side first. I was able to link my forces and take the Hungarian side with a concentrated attack from their front and left flank. Once I was able to link up, the power of the combined forces caused the Axis defense to collapse fairly quickly.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.